How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

Ref Odessa/Russia/Turkey/Grain...thats the first (supposed) sign of external nations attempting to decide a portion of Ukraine's fate.

But I dont see UKR participating in anything agreed without them involved from the start. They have zero to gain by giving up an ounce of sovereignty in any shape or manner. Ukraine isnt spelled M-U-N-I-C-H.

Give Putin an inch, and he'll take the whole damn 5,000,000 metric tons. 

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Kinophile

[Vanir Ausf B]

29 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

edit: So the Ukrainian casualty figure of 60-100 per day is apparently KIA, not all casualties. And considering that KIA are generally a third or a quarter of all casualties, that means the full casualty rate is probably somewhere between 180-400 casualties per day (or 90-200 casualties per day per 100,000 troops), which puts it roughly on par with the estimated Russian casualty rate.

Zelensky (surprisingly) gave more detailed numbers.

Between 60 and 100 Ukrainian soldiers are being killed in combat, and “around 500” are injured every twenty-four hours, Zelensky said

https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/zelensky-ukrainian-army-suffering-up-to-700-casualties-daily.html

[Kinophile]

Further to Odessa, it seems that while the general land war is absolutely a strategic and military priority, perhaps instead that opening up Access to Odessa could be a national priority.

This suggests that eliminating the BSF should actually become an overriding concern. Its far easier, and quicker, to destroy a fleet than to build one.

Im curious if those US  Reaper drones would be usable v Russian kilo subs...

[panzermartin]

I haven't seen any content posted by Haiduk lately, I hope he is doing OK. His updates were most enlightening. 

[Huba]

12 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Further to Odessa, it seems that while the general land war is absolutely a strategic and military priority, perhaps instead that opening up Access to Odessa could be a national priority.

This suggests that eliminating the BSF should actually become an overriding concern. Its far easier, and quicker, to destroy a fleet than to build one.

Im curious if those US  Reaper drones would be usable v Russian kilo subs...

I wonder if getting rid of subs is really needed. If Russians decide to sink the ships, they have plenty of aircraft capable of doing so, and there's nothing that can be done about it. But neutralizing Snake Island and surface ships of BSF means they can't stop anybody - can't take a warning shot from a sub. All that is needed then is removing the mines and some ballsy merchantmen. 

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Huba

[akd]

3 hours ago, sburke said:

a couple are contested   Wiki lists 3 as still being alive

List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia

Gerasimov being alive is cited because he got a medal, but nothing as far as I know other than that.  If he is still alive... what is he doing?  Not sure the supposed medal award trumps Bellingcat.

Gerasimov was claimed by Ukrainian authorities to have been killed during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on 7 March 2022 near Kharkiv, along with several other senior Russian officials.[2][8][9] This was not confirmed by CNN or US officials.[10] The Netherlands-based open-source intelligence (OSINT) fact-checking group Bellingcat said it had confirmed the death by accessing a Ukrainian intercept of Russian communications, as well as by means of "a Russian source".[9][11] The Guardian newspaper reported on 8 March that the Ukrainian defence department "broadcast what it claimed was a conversation between two Russian FSB officers discussing the death and complaining that their secure communications were no longer functioning inside Ukraine".[6] Gerasimov was confirmed to be in fact alive when he was awarded the Order of Alexander Nevsky on 23 May

 

AFAIK, only two have been confirmed by Russian sources, one of them being the latest (and very quickly confirmed).

Reserve Col. Vladimir Lyakhov (probably flying as a merc):

Lt. Col. Vladimir Nigmatullin, artillery officer unknown unit:

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by akd

[Vacillator]

6 minutes ago, akd said:

Reserve Col. Vladimir Lyakhov (probably flying as a merc)

1958?  I'm kind of impressed, but at the same time disappointed for various reasons.

[akd]

Just retired last year as head of a military boarding school!  Fun retirement!

French report on Caesars in action:

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

3:07

Why is the interface in English?

[Chibot Mk IX]

37 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Im curious if those US  Reaper drones would be usable v Russian kilo subs...

No, they won't be helpful in a conventional way. ASW warfare changed a lot since WW II, these Kilos are not U-Boats. They don't need to surface to release their weapons. Occasionally these diesel electric submarine will come at periscope depth for communication and recharge the battery, but that is still too deep for an ATGM. They need dedicated ASW plane to take care of. The only one in the region that has the capability is the USN. Even assume Ukraine got a squadron of  P-3C tomorrow ( plus couple more squadron of NATO fighters to protect Orion) that would not be helpful. ASW is a black magic that cannot be mastered by reading "ASW for dummies 101". It needs years of trainings, trails. 

 

The only way I can think about is the Reaper caught Kilos resupply in the naval base. But how to get rid of the SAM umbrella is another question.

 

Or, maybe, in best case scenario, one of the Kilo captain decided to surface, because he is bored with underwater patrol..... everything is possible. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Chibot Mk IX

[Centurian52]

On 6/1/2022 at 12:48 PM, Aragorn2002 said:

I don't care in what way Russians are killed, as long as they are killed. And I enjoy watching it. I 'm not a sadist, nor am I sick in the head, I just think they deserve to die.  And the more, the better.

 

I don't think anyone "deserves" to die (frankly I'm not sure anyone "deserves" anything in any rigorously determinable sense, except in that what is "deserved" can be a useful social construct for rewarding/punishing desirable/undesirable behaviors). Certainly I think that dishing out death based on what is "deserved" is a slippery slope (a position I would like to think I would maintain even if I was given custody of Hitler, but I'll make no promises to any time travelers out there). However, if they "need" to die in order to get the Russian army to leave Ukraine, then so be it.

Frankly I don't care if they die, desert, or surrender. But I want very badly for a critical mass of Russian soldiers to do one of those three things.

[Centurian52]

On 6/1/2022 at 7:57 PM, sburke said:

1 agreed - a war crime is a war crime

2 Ukraine needs POWs.  Russia has been kidnapping civilians.  Force them to trade including the guys from Mariupol.

In fact capturing the enemy is even better than killing them (although the threat of killing them is usually necessary to capture them, which is why there will never be a war in which enemy casualties are 100% POW and 0% KIA). You get all the same benefits of killing them (one killed or one captured are both a permanent reduction of the enemy's strength by one soldier) plus a few other benefits, such as the potential for intelligence, and the fact that surrendering can be a contagious behavior that can encourage others to surrender. If you kill soldiers who are trying to surrender you discourage other soldiers from surrendering and potentially you will make the enemy fight harder.

[dan/california]

Ever more convinced that Russia really has stripped the rest of the front for the battle in the Donbas salient.

 

[FancyCat]

Regarding Turkey and Ukraine and Russia, the grain must flow. both to sustain ukraine's export industry, and feed the world, i hope Ukraine will take the deal, even if mines are removed, and apparently, Russia is demanding the right of inspection over the ships inbound to Odessa. That I don't think should be agreed to, but the grain needs to go. 

Hopefully, as part of the concessions to Ukraine, Ukraine can get more anti-ship missiles, and anything else NATO has been resisting to hand over so far. Maybe some goddamn tanks....

edit: this bloomberg article says Zelensky wants weapons in return for the opening of Odessa. so, i think the mines in the sea lane are not vital for sea defense, and this is a good way of getting more guns from NATO in return. whether, Russia actually intends to open the sealane remains more uncertain. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-06/ukraine-cautious-as-turkey-russia-push-black-sea-grain-deal

Edited June 6, 2022 by FancyCat

[Kinophile]

Good point re drone v subs. I'd forgotten my Harpoon days...

Still, surface vessels you can track. If one is hoing to kill the BSF you have to start with the subs, because even if you get the ships the subs remain a hard to track threat.

But, as Ive noted before, hitting the sub support facilities now, and regularly, would quickly degrade the sub fleet, and with Russian maintenance/corruption being what it is...

 

[Huba]

22 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Regarding Turkey and Ukraine and Russia, the grain must flow. both to sustain ukraine's export industry, and feed the world, i hope Ukraine will take the deal, even if mines are removed, and apparently, Russia is demanding the right of inspection over the ships inbound to Odessa. That I don't think should be agreed to, but the grain needs to go. 

Hopefully, as part of the concessions to Ukraine, Ukraine can get more anti-ship missiles, and anything else NATO has been resisting to hand over so far. Maybe some goddamn tanks....

edit: this bloomberg article says Zelensky wants weapons in return for the opening of Odessa. so, i think the mines in the sea lane are not vital for sea defense, and this is a good way of getting more guns from NATO in return. whether, Russia actually intends to open the sealane remains more uncertain. 

I just found the original Bloomberg article. TBH, if Russians are OK to let the ships through with just the inspections, it sounds like a great deal.

Ukraine is already supposed to have the Danish Harpoons, plus Brimstone/ Swedish Hellfires for close-in work. Sufe a NSM battery would be nice, but it is not crucial. I can't umagine how Russians could threaten Odessa coast anyway, they would need a really cunning plan, and they really suck at those. 

If Russians really don't demand any sanction lifting, Ukraine has to agree to a deal or will be painted a bad guy very quickly. 

And the link to the article:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-06/ukraine-cautious-as-turkey-russia-push-black-sea-grain-deal

Edited June 6, 2022 by Huba

[Huba]

34 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Good point re drone v subs. I'd forgotten my Harpoon days...

Still, surface vessels you can track. If one is hoing to kill the BSF you have to start with the subs, because even if you get the ships the subs remain a hard to track threat.

But, as Ive noted before, hitting the sub support facilities now, and regularly, would quickly degrade the sub fleet, and with Russian maintenance/corruption being what it is...

 

But it still leaves aircraft, doesn't it? Russians are supposed to be really good at anti-ship strike. To physically remove this threat, at minimum you'd need to take Crimea and place SAMs there, and even then there will be risk.

To force the passage to Odessa, West has to call Russian bluff at some point and Russians have to blink. Or a deal has to be struck.

Edit: oh, and let's not forget Russian shore based anti-ship missiles. Any system in Russian service should be able to hit ships approaching Odessa at will, when placed in southern Kherson oblast. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Huba

[sburke]

Russia Vows to Take More of Ukraine if West Provides Long-Range Missiles (msn.com)

Baghdad Bob is back

 

[Fenris]

1 hour ago, akd said:

Just retired last year as head of a military boarding school!  Fun retirement!

French report on Caesars in action:

 

Thanks, that was interesting (even though I don't speak French).  Did she say they were able to shoot and scoot in 4 minutes?

[Vacillator]

BBC reporting the UK sending 3 M270s:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61701055

I trust that isn't a missile exiting right hand side?

The article also says the US is supplying 'a rocket system' HIMARS. 

Is the BBC slightly behind the confirmation curve here?

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Vacillator

[SeinfeldRules]

8 minutes ago, Fenris said:

Thanks, that was interesting (even though I don't speak French).  Did she say they were able to shoot and scoot in 4 minutes?

Essentially, that is the benefit of the full digital system that the Caesar has onboard.

 

Quote

I trust that isn't a missile exiting right hand side?

Yes that is one of the rockets out of the pod.

Edited June 6, 2022 by SeinfeldRules

[Battlefront.com]

Kofman and a colleague just put up an OpEd in NYT today entitled "Russia Is Down. But It’s Not Out".  Paywall:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-nato.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-shadow-lda-unique-time-cutoff-30&alpha=0.05&block=trending_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=131177089&impression_id=6834b610-e5e1-11ec-9509-d5f4e3503faf&index=3&pgtype=Article&pool=pool%2F91fcf81c-4fb0-49ff-bd57-a24647c85ea1&region=footer&req_id=863518704&shadow_vec_sim=0.738009225925462&surface=eos-most-popular-story&variant=1_bandit-eng30s-shadow-lda-unique

 

Overall there's not too much to quibble with.  The overall point is that Russia still has a lot of things to keep the West worried about, such as nuke armed subs, cyber capabilities, strategic nuke armed airforce, etc.  None of these things have been directly harmed by the war and Russia certainly still acts like it is all powerful, so bad attitude still unchecked.

However, not surprising to any of you I find some of the arguments made in the OpEd a little odd.  Three points in particular:

Quote

But appearances can be deceptive. After all, many of the army’s initial failures stemmed from Mr. Putin’s misplaced assumption that the war would be short and sharp: Russian troops were simply not prepared or organized for a serious campaign. Yet in recent weeks, as Russia revised its war aims to focus on the Donbas in Ukraine’s east, Russian forces have adapted and begun correcting some of their earlier incompetence. Russia has been making incremental gains, revealing Ukraine’s military position to be precarious in some areas.

This is our primary topic of discussion here, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say many here don't agree with this statement.  What I see here is the oft repeated excuse of why experts so badly misjudged Russia's ability to wage war.  It's a sorta "stabbed in the back" argument like the Germans had after WW1.  The thinking that the Russian military would have been able to successfully conduct a full scale war against Ukraine except for Putin's leadership is nonsense.  Russia military was simply not up to the challenge and no war plan would have led to success.  So yes, blame Putin for expecting his military to do something beyond its capabilities, but do not excuse the military for it's inability to perform even rudimentary military tasks on a bad battle plan.

Quote

In any case, the Russian military will be spared the full effect of economic contraction. Even in straitened times, the Kremlin has a habit of spending on arms rather than people: We can be sure that it won’t be the military budget that Mr. Putin cuts first.

This is part of the "Russia can fight a long war" argument that I find highly flawed.  Yes, this is how Russia has behaved.  But it's behaved like this when in a much better set of circumstance than Russia faces right now.  It is unclear if Russia can afford to continue lavish spending on the military at the expense of the people's well being.  It's been doing that for most of the last 8 years and there are signs even before this war that misappropriation of national priorities was starting to strain the social contract between Putin and the people.  In the past Putin got away with a lot of this sort of thing because many Russians saw some evidence that life for them was getting better.  That's unlikely to be the case from now on.

Further, in the past Russia has been able to spend new money to revise existing/old stuff because it found that it didn't have enough money to build up a brand new force from scratch.  And this was with a much better economy and far less problematic sanctions.  How is Russia going to build brand new stuff (the old stuff is either upgraded or destroyed already) with the realities of its reduced economic capabilities?  It would require Putin to spend more money (absolute terms) per year than any previous year and to do so for a number of years in a row.  Since the overall economy has less money available, this means record breaking percentages of the national budget will be needed for defense spending at a time when the overall budget is (likely) lower than it has been in decades.

At best Putin might be able to starve his people to rebuild an equally ineffective military. To do more than that he's going to have to steal even more money from the national budget!  Anybody know of a situation where a government has successfully spent 30% of its GDP on military spending to fight a war of choice?  I can't think of one.

Quote

And though export controls will make it difficult for the country to produce weapons that rely on imported components, Russia’s defense industry has spent years adapting and finding ways to work around sanctions.

This is very dismissive and, I think, one of their weakest arguments.  Part of the reason why the Russian military has performed so poorly in Ukraine is that the limitations and compounding problems associated with Russia's years of being forced to "work around sanctions".  And those sanctions were child's play compared to what is in place today.

Also, what is this going to do to their arms export business?  That's a big chunk of their GDP that's now in doubt.  Clients should already be thinking twice about buying Russia's best technology, so how enthusiastic are they going to be about buying even worse tech?

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Artillery porn

 

[OldSarge]

I haven't seen this posted here, an RFE/RL crew out with some UA red legs trying out their new equipment.

 

[danfrodo]

51 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

At best Putin might be able to starve his people to rebuild an equally ineffective military. To do more than that he's going to have to steal even more money from the national budget!  Anybody know of a situation where a government has successfully spent 30% of its GDP on military spending to fight a war of choice?  I can't think of one.

Japan, 1930s?  Over 30% of GDP for quite a while, at least that's what I'd read.